[Bell Historians] Bell Listing

[Chris Pickford]

I'm slightly reluctant to contribute on this topic because I am not at 
all wedded to the idea of "listing" - one reason I have turned down 
invitations to re-join the CBC Bells Sub-Committee - and have some 
sympathy with the concerns addressed. Nevertheless, I think we need to 
be a little kinder to those who are attempting to identify bells of 
historical significance. I use the term "listing" for brevity - aware 
that this does not have the same status as listing for historic buildings.

A few points:

1. David Knight should be well-known to all of us. He is, and has been 
for quite a while now, the member of staff at the CBC with 
responsibility for bells. He is simply updating "Dove" with bells that 
have already been identified by the CBC Committee as significant  and 
not doing so arbitrarily or on a personal basis

2. As with the whole equally thorny issue of listed buildings, the 
process of identifying and grading significant examples simply cannot be 
done on the basis of consensus or through liaison with owners and 
custodians. To do so would result in even greater inconsistency, with 
"listing" being limited to examples where custodians (for the time being 
- another generation might think differently) give consent, while 
(arguably) "better" examples are not because the church concerned 
doesn't like it.

2a. Notification of parishes is another matter. I do have some sympathy 
with the idea that churches should be told if their bells (and any other 
fittings) are listed - though suspect it might add significantly to the 
admin (and cost) of the CBC's work

3. Thus the process has to be independent, and it is one for which the 
CBC (and the CCC previously) has taken responsibility for some decades 
now. The lists were originally drawn up by the likes of F.C. Eeles (CCC 
staff), H.B. Walters and Fred Sharpe, but revised by Ranald Clouston in 
the 1970 and 1980s. At that time listing /*was*/ virtually a personal 
assessment by the individuals concerned, albeit with input from others, 
but (as I recall) without a formal CCC approval process. But it was not 
unthinking - and Ranald worked very hard, carefully considering a range 
of issues, to come up with lists that were fair and acceptable.

4. While members of this list may have concerns about the current 
listing process and its application, I think it is only fair to 
recognise that the system is now operated a) according to stated 
criteria and b) that bells identified as historically significant are 
only added to the lists by due process (including committee / Council 
approval). So in that sense, things are rather better than they once were

5. Also, the lists now specify what makes a bell "significant" - in line 
with the general principle that proposals to undertake works on historic 
buildings and artefacts should be accompanied by statements of a) need 
and b) significance. What actually appears in the list is often just the 
most striking of several aspects that have been considered. If you don't 
believe that identifying significance can be difficult, then try writing 
a statement! It's surprisingly hard not to be subjective. How do you 
make comparisons between objects that are similar but different - and 
not alongside as you try to assess them? And how broad do you cast the 
net (e.g. geographical area) in trying to take an overview?

6. I'm wary of these statements as a result, because the fact that the 
brief is to identify significance means that it tends to get overstated. 
Better to have them than not, on the whole, but given the difficulties 
(5) it's wrong to get too bigged down in quibbles about minor errors of 
fact (heaviest example etc) when that may only be an element in a 
broader-based assessment. Accuracy is perhaps not quite so serious a 
problem as it might seem. The lists of historical buildings (which I use 
regularly in my work) are equally inconsistent and full of inaccuracies, 
but they provide an independent overview of the "building stock" in the 
same way that the CBC lists aim to do for bells.

7. If there are going to be lists, then it seems reasonable to me that 
they shouldn't just focus on highlights. Surely all those big John 
Wallis bells of the early C17 are important - and which one happens to 
be the heaviest is pretty much immaterial.

8. Mention has been made of tone. I think I do welcome the move towards 
listing of truly excellent - and relatively modern - bells like 
Westbury. There has always been a degree of recognition that tonal 
quality matters - there was, for instance, reluctance to "list" the old 
steel eight at Moseley because listing might have prevented eventual 
replacement - but this was always coupled with a realisation that 
judgment could be too subjective. Ranald, certainly, did not wish to 
saddle a parish with a poor bell or bells. But is poor tone a reason not 
to list a bell that could be preserved for historic interest out of use? 
Probably not.

Yes, listing can be restrictive - a major concern.

But a decision has been made that there should be lists of bells and a 
system has evolved to do the job. Given the complexities of the process 
and the range of issues, I'm not sure that the system we have is too 
bad. It's easy to criticise obvious errors and inconsistencies, but in 
the bigger scale of things they're not over important.

What is being attempted here is a national overview - and, quibbles 
apart (like Preshute), most bells in the lists deserve to be there. I 
remain a sceptic, but I'm very willing to recognise the value in what 
the CBC has now created.

-- 
Chris Pickford 4 Walmsley Court, High Street, Kinver, DY7 6HG Tel: 01384 
878435 or (mobile) 07811 453525 E-mail: c.j.pickford at talk21.com or 
(interchangeably) c.j.pickford.t21 at btinternet.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20140107/3f91b5ca/attachment.html>